City of Portland Pond-breeding Amphibian Long-term Monitoring Project ~ Findings and Recommendations From the 2010 Field Season ~ Prepared by: Meghan Young For the City of Portland Bureau of Parks & Recreation Bureau of Environmental Services TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…..……………………………………………………………………….1 Methods………………………………………………………………………………..3 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Discussion…………………………………………………………………............... 11 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………................. 27 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………… 28 Tables Table 1. 2010 Study Sites organized by watershed and priority needs for monitoring……. 3 Table 2. Pond-breeding Amphibian Presence in Portland, OR……………………………. 4 Table 3. Sampling factors collected for water quality analysis and methods used………... 6 Table 4. Pond characteristics and other site factors collected and methods used………… 7 Table 5. Summary of 2010 findings based on multiple linear regression analyses……….. 10 Table 6. Species presence for all sites surveyed in 2010 (based on egg-mass data)……… 30 Table 7. Species assemblage between years for sites surveyed in 2008, 2009, and 2010… 31 Figures Figure 1. Presence of pond-breeding amphibians in 2010 breeding season……………….....32 Figure 2. Ten highest density sites for each species for each stage surveyed…………….......33 Figure 3. “Four Corners” Wetland Complex, Columbia Slough Watershed………………....34 Figure 4. Shared upland habitat amongst sites in “east” Johnson Creek Watershed………....35 Figure 5. Sites with high densities of Red-legged Frogs in “west” Johnson Creek Watershed……... 36 Figure 6. Shared habitat amongst sites in Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge and Sellwood…….37 Figure 7. Density of amphibians in manmade vs. natural ponds…………………………….38 Figure 8. Relationship between amphibian density and pond clarity………………………..38 Figure 9. Relationship between Red-legged frog density and pH of a pond…………………39 Figure 10. Correlations of amphibian densities among years………………………………...39 Figure 11. Relationship between Pacific Tree frogs and amount of refugia in ponds………..40 Figure 12. Comparing densities of amphibians in ponds with and without Bullfrogs………..40 Appendices Appendix 1. List of Plant species used as potential attachment for egg masses…………….41 Appendix 2. Winter Season 2010 Egg mass data sheet (1)………………………………….42 Appendix 3. Spring Season 2010 Tadpole/larvae datasheets (2)…………………………….43 Appendix 4. Results of multiple linear regressions for each species for each season surveyed……45 Appendix 5. Recommendations for sites surveyed during 2010 amphibian monitoring season……48 INTRODUCTION It is a widely known fact that amphibian populations are declining and becoming extinct across the globe. Factors such as habitat fragmentation, introduced species, global climate change, disease outbreaks, and pesticide contamination are contributing to a forty-three percent decline in amphibian populations worldwide (Stuart et al 2004). Amphibians have moist, permeable skin that can rapidly absorb toxic substances in the environment and because of this they can be considered excellent indicators of environmental health (Marks 2006). Habitat requirements for many species of amphibians include a variety of both wetland and forested areas. For populations to be successful, these habitats must be both individually suitable for amphibians and connected to each other (Bowne & Bowers 2004). Here in the Pacific Northwest urban sprawl and development are increasing at an alarming rate and natural habitats and fragile wetland areas are disappearing. In the Willamette Valley alone, 40-87% of original wetland areas have been lost to urbanization, agriculture, silviculture, and flood- control projects (Gabriel 1993, Oregon Biodiversity Project 1998). Therefore, it is imperative that we strive to get a more complete understanding of the effects of development on amphibians populations so that better management decisions can be implemented in an effort to prevent further displacement of species from their native ranges (Paton and Egan 2001; Mitchell and Brown 2008). In the city of Portland, however, environmental awareness, stewardship, and conservation appear to be on the rise. In an effort to learn more about our natural areas and their role in amphibian conservation, the City of Portland, Parks and Recreation (PP&R) and Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), allocated funding for an amphibian monitoring project in the spring of 2008. In this initial assessment of amphibian occurrence in the city of Portland, nine species were found to be breeding in aquatic or terrestrial habitats (Holzer 2009). Of these nine breeding species, six were documented in ponds and wetlands in a variety of habitats throughout the city during the 2008 & 2009 breeding seasons. In the 2010 breeding season, the amphibian monitoring project continued with the following goals: 1. To collect a 3rd year of consecutive abundance/density data on pond-breeding amphibian populations at selected sites in the city of Portland 2. To determine environmental and chemical factors influencing amphibian presence and to make recommendations for specific sites accordingly 1 3. To design and implement amphibian monitoring training sessions for both city of Portland employees and volunteer citizen scientists The focus of this report is to summarize the findings of the 2010 field season for pond-breeding amphibians and to introduce long-term ecological monitoring goals for the amphibian monitoring project in the city of Portland. 2 METHODS Sampling sites A total of sixty-four sites within five watersheds were surveyed in Portland, Oregon, from January 2010 through June 2010. These sites were selected for monitoring in the 2010 field season by a committee of BES and PP& R ecologists based on the needs and interests of individual watershed teams. In Table 1 (below), sites are organized by watershed and listed in order of their priority for monitoring. Almost every site was visited twice during the winter (egg mass) season and three times during the spring (tadpole/larvae) season. Detailed descriptions of individual sites and survey findings can be found in the “discussions” section of this report. Table 1. 2010 Study Sites organized by watershed and priority needs for monitoring. (Numbers in parenthesis denote number of pond/wetland sites that were surveyed within each area.) Columbia Slough Johnson Creek Four Corners Complex: Winmar Circle Ave Sites (2) & Mason Flats (5) Alice Springs Pumpelly Pond (1) Priorities for (2) Powell Butte stock pond (1) Monitoring Whitaker Ponds (4) Zenger Farms (3) Schlessinger/Zen (2) 138th Leach Botanical Gardens (1) stormwater facility Brookside Ponds (7) Swales in Big 4 North: Brownwood/Schweitzer (8) Bernard's Pond (1) Alsop Wetland (1) WMS Pond (2) Hillside Properties (1) Johnson Lake (1) Powell Butte (2) Priorities for Blue Heron Wetland (1) Errol Heights (3) Site Visits Crystal Springs (1) Tideman-Johnson (2) Kelly Creek (3) Beggar's Tick Marsh (1) Mainstem Willammette Tryon & Fanno Creek Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge (4) April Hill (1) Priotities for Sellwood Riverfront Park (1) Monitoring Water pollution C.Lab Test Swale (1) Audubon Society Pond (1) Tryon Creek Headwaters (3) Priorities for None Maricara Park (1) Site Visits 3 Species The Pacific Northwest provides aquatic breeding grounds for over twenty species of native frogs, toads, and salamanders (Corkran 2006). In the Portland area, six species of pond-breeding amphibians occur; five are native to the northwest and one, the American Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) is a non-native, introduced species from the eastern United States that arrived in the 1920s or 1930s to meet the demands of the restaurant industry with their big, meaty legs (Corkran 2006). In this study, four of the native pond-breeding species will be targeted for occurrence during field surveys (Table 2). Table 2: Pond-breeding amphibians in Portland, OR. Common Name Latin name Species Code Pacific Treefrog* Pseudacris regilla PSRE Red-legged Frog* Rana aurora RAAU Long-toed Salamander* Ambystoma macrodactylum AMMA Northwestern Salamander* Ambystoma gracile AMGR Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulose TAGR American Bullfrog** Lithobates catesbeianus LICA * Four target native species in 2010 study, ** Non-native species Rough-skinned Newt (Taricha granulosa) is omitted from the list this season due to the difficulty in both finding egg masses and in identifying species at the larval stage. However, when observed in the field (whether in egg mass form or adult), T. granulosa was recorded and is noted in the site discussions section of this report. Additionally, American Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) was included in the data set when observed in the field, typically in adult form, due to their indistinct and late breeding season. Egg mass surveys The survey protocol used in this study (in both the 2009 & 2010 breeding seasons) was originally adapted from the Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaces, “Amphibian Egg Mass Monitoring Protocol”, in which visual encounter surveys are conducted in a time-constrained matter (Metro 2006). Time-constrained surveys assess relative amphibian abundance by catch per person- hour of sampling, where times recorded are search and capture times and do not include time spent recording and identifying species (Thoms et al 1997). For sampling sites in the 2010 field season 4 that were too large to be completely surveyed in one visit (complex wetland sites), time constrained surveys were used. An additional method of sampling, called an area-constrained survey, calculates relative amphibian abundance by determining number of egg masses surveyed per square meter sampled. Area-constrained surveys were the preferred method for 2010 sampling sites for which the entire area of the site could be surveyed and dimensions of the habitat easily obtained. Both time-constrained and area-constrained surveys are recommended subsampling monitoring methods in lentic habitats that can be repeated over time at a site to assess changes in species presence or relative abundance (Thoms et al 1997). During the 2010 breeding season, from late January through late March, sites were surveyed for egg masses using whichever method of surveying was most appropriate for each site, depending on site characteristics, sampling resources, and number of surveyors. For each egg mass survey, the surveyor starts at one end of the pond and walks along a transect and scans visually an area approx 1m wide until the other end of the site is reached. The direction is then reversed as the surveyor walks another transect, parallel to the last and approximately 1m apart. This method is continued until the chosen area of the site has been completely surveyed. For sites with no established perimeter, such as wetland areas with forested corridors, a portion of the area was marked off to create a visually recognizable perimeter, and the new site dimensions were recorded. Upon spotting an egg mass the surveyor stops and records: species, approximate number of eggs, developmental stage of the eggs, and type of attachment vegetation. In sites where egg masses were in high density, the number of eggs in each mass was omitted and tallies of egg masses were recorded instead. Approximate percentage of site surveyed and total survey time were also recorded. An example datasheet used during the 2010 egg mass season is included in Appendix 2. Tadpole/larvae surveys During the spring season, from March to late June 2010, the perimeter of each pond was surveyed for tadpoles and salamander larvae. For this method, the surveyor stands in the pond, approximately 1m from the edge, and dips a net into the pond (about one arm’s length) pulling the net towards the shore (from deep to shallow) every three steps of the perimeter. Individual numbers of species from each scoop were recorded. Additional information was gathered on snout-to-vent lengths (SVL), for approximately ten individuals at each site to determine the range of developmental 5 stages per species. Appendix 3 contains examples of two datasheets used during the 2010 tadpole/larvae season. In an on-going effort to refine study results, new methodology was considered and tested in the field during the spring season. For one week in June 2010, a different type of dip-net survey was introduced as an alternative and potentially superior method for spring surveys in this study. The dip- net survey, instead of being isolated to the perimeter of the pond, is dispersed throughout the site. The site is divided into ten sections, and for each chosen dip-net location, the surveyor submerges the net under water and walks for ten seconds while scooping with momentum. Catch species and numbers are recorded. In addition, during the spring and summer field season, all larval salamanders were recorded as “Caudata”, (the order of salamanders) to prevent misidentification of species. As both of the target salamander species in this study share the same genus, their identification at larval stage is challenging in the field. Sampling of site conditions In addition to the egg mass and tadpole/larvae surveys, a variety of supplemental data was collected regarding water quality and site characteristic at each site. Tables 3-4 summarize the methods used for each of these procedures during the 2010 field season. Table 3. Sampling factors collected for water quality analysis and methods used. Water Quality Data Method water temperature Measurement (° C) was taken 12” below surface when possible. dissolved oxygen CHEMets ® vacuoles were snapped into water sample and recorded as "ppm" after waiting ten minutes for accurate reading. pH Measurement was recorded using pHydrion ® "Brilliant Dip Stik 0- 13", 0-6, and 6.5-13 and averages of all three were recorded. nitrates & nitrites "5 in 1" Test Strips from Eco-Check™ were dipped into water sample and measurement was recorded after 60 seconds. subsurface visibility Clarity of pond was recorded as poor (visibility less than 1ft down), fair (less than 2ft down), or excellent (greater than 2ft down). 6 Table 4. Pond characteristics and other site factors collected and methods used for each. Pond Characteristics Method Depth Measurement was recorded at deepest point of site (cm). Area of site Dimensions of site estimated at Ordinary High Water Mark. surrounding An area of 10m surrounding the pond was surveyed and classified vegetative cover on a scale of 1-5, with “1” indicating exposed ground at height of 1m or below (0-20% cover) and “5” indicating complete ground cover at height of 1m or below (80-100% cover). surrounding cover This is a measurement of protective cover objects (such as rocks and objects logs) around the edge and within a 10m buffer around the site. A “1” was scored for 0-2 cover objects, a “2” for 3-4 objects, a “3” for 4-5 objects, a “4” for 6-7 objects, and “5” for 8 or more objects. % aquatic vegetation Pond was visually divided into 25 segments and estimates of aquatic vegetation dominating each segment were recorded (spring season). % perimeter vegetation This was calculated by recording the % of vegetation around the edge and within a 1m buffer around the site. % refugia This is a measurement of how much of the site (above & below the water) is covered by objects like sticks, logs, rocks, and vegetation. % shading from above An ocular estimate was made of percent of shade provided from above by trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, or other. % shading from surface An ocular estimate was made of the percent of shading provided from floating vegetation on the water surface. Other site factors seasonal or permanent, man-made or natural, distance to forest, distance to running water, distance to another pond Trainings One of the goals of the amphibian long-term monitoring project is to promote outreach and education. In an effort to involve concerned citizens and city of Portland employees in the amphibian monitoring project, two trainings were held this year in February of 2010. Employees of both BES and PP&R received an in-class training session on survey protocol and amphibian identification methods for both pond and terrestrially breeding species. Interested parties then 7 had the opportunity to attend a field-based training session to further their amphibian identification skills and to help assist with the 2010 monitoring efforts. A formal information session on the amphibian monitoring program was also organized for approximately fifteen volunteers with PP&R. Each of these volunteers also had the opportunity to attend a follow-up field training. Depending on availability and level of training, some volunteers assisted with surveys throughout the egg mass season at specific sites. 8